This Might Be Nuts.....

[Vince Lupo]

Okay, I know that I can buy some weird stuff - maybe it's just boredom or something! But I bought this basically sight unseen from an online dealer who described it as a 'Leica I C Standard Copy Chrome'. It was cheap, and I hadn't seen a I C Standard copy before (that wasn't explicitly described as being Russian, as usually this dealer does), so I thought what the heck.

Sooo....here it is. I have to say that it 'feels' like a Leica (both in sound and feel), though obviously things have been done to it, if it's in fact a Leica. The serial number (if real) puts it at 1930, and I'm assuming that originally it would have been a non-standard Leica I. So I'm concocting a 'story' behind this camera, and was wondering if this might seem plausible, or am I completely nuts and it's just a crappy copy.

Okay, here's my potential scenario for this camera: Purchased as a Leica I non-standard back in the day. Then 'standardized' at some point. Then a synch was added at a later date. Strap lugs were obviously next. Finally, the owner got tired of that ugly black finish and nickel knobs - it was all probably getting worn at this point - and decided to do it up in fancy bright chrome. They didn't think the shutter release button, strap lugs , baseplate pin, lens mount and the rewind lever needed to be chromed. And then they were done - a revitailized Leica I non-standard with updated features and shiny new clothes!

Now, I must say that the rewind lever doesn't look right, as the little 'knob' isn't knurled. The strap lugs look really well used. The top plate is secured by one screw in the front, one in the back, and one on each end (but some of the non-standards had top plates like this, so that doesn't really concern me).

So, am I nuts or what?! Even if it IS a Leica, has all the 'value' been stripped from it because of all these 'updates'?

 

[George S.]

It's just a crappy copy. Sorry.

 

[John Shriver]

Well, it's certainly ugly, at least in my opinion.

The screw pattern for the top is that of a I, not a Standard.

The mounting flange looks pretty convincing.

If the shutter box is built up, rather than a casting, it might be real. But tasteless.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Well, it's certainly ugly, at least in my opinion.

The screw pattern for the top is that of a I, not a Standard.

The mounting flange looks pretty convincing.

If the shutter box is built up, rather than a casting, it might be real. But tasteless.

Yeah I agree, definitely not my taste. But, as you suspect based on those few elements, I was doubtful of its 'copy' status as well.

So, here's the dilemma (in a fun kinda way): I paid less than $ 100.00 for this creation. I can return it, which isn't a problem. But, if it is real, what should I do with it? Just leave it alone and use it? Send it back? Strip it all, repaint it properly, nickel plate, etc etc etc? Chrome the parts that are nickel? Cover it in fur???

 

[dee]

I would see it as an opportunity to have some fun with it .
I don't know what it is , but it may actually be a bitsa from mostly Leica parts ...
I quite like it - but nickel plate would totally revive it ...
Does it work !!??

 

[Vince Lupo]

I would see it as an opportunity to have some fun with it .
I don't know what it is , but it may actually be a bitsa from mostly Leica parts ...
I quite like it - but nickel plate would totally revive it ...
Does it work !!??

Oh yeah, it works just fine. That's the funny thing - it FEELS like a real Leica I. The sound, the winding. the shutter speed dial - they all feel 'right'.

Right now I have a 50/3.5 Elmar (#126692) and it looks great. Plus, I just put my Hugo Meyer Megoflex on it, and it's okay, you know? I'll try to post a shot of it like that!

 

[40oz]

it is what it is. If it were a car, it'd be a hot rod, and plenty of people would still chime in about how ugly it was now that it isn't factory anymore.

If it works, I don't see what difference it makes what the price was or who worked on it. It's not like anyone *really* cares if it is a Leica. The fact a few parts might have come from one merely means they fit. A few engravings might be total BS, but it's not like it would change anything if they were authentic. Assuming the camera works or can be made to work.

I think it looks clean and useful. And puts to shame what most people call "chrome" on a camera 🙂

 

[MikeL]

Hey Vince,
I have two Standards in the 50000 range (bought by same owner), one of which was later converted to a III. The bottom mechanics on yours look similar to those on the converted III, although your sync looks like it was done by a third party (shaved shutter spring to accommodate the added sync connection and the wiring).

On the top plate neither of mine have pins showing just under the shutter release ring. The strap lugs look similar. Your vulcanite looks like a later vintage than on 1930 Standards I've seen.

That chrome kicks a$$, screw what others think. Fo shizzle!🙂

 

[Vince Lupo]

Here's a shot of it with the Elmar lens:

Here's a view with the Hugo Meyer Megoflex. Might as well go all the way!

 

[LeicaTom]

"Cover it in fur".......now that`s funny 😀!

Looks like a REAL Leica to me, just someone had too much time on their hands and and chrome bath 😉

Looks pretty neet with the Elmar on it........and that table tripod is pretty kool too (I NEED A WARTIME ISSUED ERA ONE MYSELF) is that early 1940`s pattern vulcanite???? (MAYBE THAT`S WHEN THE CAMERA WAS FIRST MODIFIED?) Leitz was still converting early cameras at the start of the war, they stopped converting real old stuff about 1949.
*That Megoflex is a pretty kool item too, see now it all looks great together, go shoot some film with it!!!!!! ~ your brave I don`t shoot with anything earlier than 1940 😉*

If it was a Russian version, it`s crazy rare I guess?

I don`t know anything about Fed`s or Zorki`s just have heard that the first Leica copies based on Leica I made in Russia are very rare, I`ve never seen one.......

Tom

 

[Vince Lupo]

That chrome kicks a$$, screw what others think. Fo shizzle!🙂

Geez - maybe the chrome actually ADDS value to the camera! 😱

 

[Vince Lupo]

"Cover it in fur".......now that`s funny 😀!

Looks like a REAL Leica to me, just someone had too much time on their hands and and chrome bath 😉

Looks pretty neet with the Elmar on it........and that table tripod is pretty kool too (I NEED A WARTIME ISSUED ERA ONE MYSELF) is that early 1940`s pattern vulcanite???? (MAYBE THAT`S WHEN THE CAMERA WAS FIRST MODIFIED?) Leitz was still converting early cameras at the start of the war, they stopped converting real old stuff about 1949.
*That Megoflex is a pretty kool item too, see now it all looks great together, go shoot some film with it!!!!!! ~ your brave I don`t shoot with anything earlier than 1940 😉*


Tom

Oh c'mon Tom, you know I use all the weird old junk -- Contaflex TLR, MOOLY motors, Contax I. Right now I'm using a Leica I Standard C with some XP2 in it (sorry, no fur on this one).

Yes that Megoflex is a sweetie -- don't remember where I got it, but I sure didn't pay what people like Photo Arsenal are asking. It's a bit of a chore to collimate with the lens, but it's pretty cool nonetheless!

Vulcanite looks '30s to me - I have a 1935 Leica III which has similar stuff.

Okay, sounds like you guys are leaning me towards keeping it? I'm sure I've spent less than $100.00 on stupider things.....

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Recently I've noticed more and more cameras coming up for sale that have been polished (badly!) they look like someone has spent time on them with a Dremel and buffing wheels. Before retiring, I made molds ( tools ) for plastic injection molding machines, all of which required various degrees of surface finnish, it was very apparent that metal polishing is a specialized, skilled job, and when not done properly or appropriately is a killer of fine detail, flatness and authenticity, and spoils more projects than it benefits. Most of these examples look so 'obvious' and contrived, I for one don't give 'em much attention!.
Cheers, Dave.

 

[sanmich]

Given it is a leica, I would personally have it de-chromed and painted black...
But the fur thing is sure tempting🙂

 

[brachal]

If it works, why not keep it? I think it's pretty cool. Would be cooler covered in fur, though.

For some reason, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with my 3 year old nephew at Christmas. I asked him, "What do you want for Christmas?" He said, "A Camera!"

"Really," I said. "What kind of camera?" He thought for a second and then said, "A poisonous one!" Now I want one too.

 

[colyn]

Oh yeah, it works just fine. That's the funny thing - it FEELS like a real Leica I. The sound, the winding. the shutter speed dial - they all feel 'right'.

If you are asking if it is a genuine Leica...it is...right down to the knockout plug on the rear of the shell. Someone added the flash sync and probably had it chromed by a chrome shop or did it at home with a cheap chrome plating kit at some point. Most likely it was originally painted black..

 

[projectbluebird]

Cover it in fur???

Maybe if you can find something in zebra print, or purple velvet.

 

[xayraa33]

it is a real Leica

 

[Dralowid]

I'm tempted to suggets that there is a real Leica in there somewhere...but...it would have been black with engraving filled with Woods metal and the engraving on the top of this camera looks too deep. On that basis the whole thing has been worked over big time...

I can't think of a way of distressing high gloss chrome to give it a period feel so what would I do? Use it, that is a very hardwearing finish!

Michael

 

[Bill58]

That "thing" has more chrome than a 57' Caddy.